P J Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 Did anyone go to the opening night of the fair then ? It's very colourful although it could be a little bit distracting as you drive past at night seeing the large swinging ride all lit up and wizzing round in the air. That one looks scarey Seems to work safely enough in Blackpool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 I'm easily distracted by bright lights especially neon blue ones PJ. I think I may have been a fly in a past life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 I am always distracted by blue neon lights. especially when they are attached to police cars behind me. :oops: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 A few photo's of it all taken last night 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 11, 2015 Report Share Posted December 11, 2015 I'm easily distracted by bright lights especially neon blue ones PJ. I think I may have been a fly in a past life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 That's a fish not a fly PJ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted December 12, 2015 Report Share Posted December 12, 2015 Balmy idea, attracting children to run across a busy road why didn't they use Victoria park as they usually do, the Mr Smiths site looks heavily congested with equipment, surely Silcocks would have prefered the park where they could place more rides on there. Also a distraction for motorists at night!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 13, 2015 Report Share Posted December 13, 2015 That's a fish not a fly PJ ha you just sounded like Dorrie from finding Nemo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 13, 2015 Report Share Posted December 13, 2015 :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted December 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 Has it got any busier Dizzy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 Came past there last night at 7 and it was deserted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 Balmy idea, attracting children to run across a busy road why didn't they use Victoria park as they usually do, the Mr Smiths site looks heavily congested with equipment, surely Silcocks would have prefered the park where they could place more rides on there. Also a distraction for motorists at night!. Perhaps Silcocks got to use the site cut price or even rent free so that a 'donation' could be made to charity. The owners of the site maybe trying to gain goodwill and silence gossip about the arson attack before their mass profit making development plans are submitted? No news yet on the suspected arsonists? Have they been charged or is there no evidence at all that they committed the alleged crime? Also are the owners of the site not at least being charged with negligence for not keeping the building safe and secure from intruders? And while I'm on the subject, who paid for the fire brigade, police time etc. etc. etc.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 Has it got any busier Dizzy? I've no idea Gary as I've not been again since the opening night and haven't driven past that way either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted December 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 Perhaps Silcocks got to use the site cut price or even rent free so that a 'donation' could be made to charity. The owners of the site maybe trying to gain goodwill and silence gossip about the arson attack before their mass profit making development plans are submitted? No news yet on the suspected arsonists? Have they been charged or is there no evidence at all that they committed the alleged crime? Also are the owners of the site not at least being charged with negligence for not keeping the building safe and secure from intruders? And while I'm on the subject, who paid for the fire brigade, police time etc. etc. etc.? They didn't get it for free - far from it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 Well Gary, I can't say that I'm pleased to hear that the owners are already profiting on their negligence! Have you got any news yet on the investigations into the alleged arson? Do you know if the suspects are on bail or have they been cleared of any involvement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 I can now update. On 25th Nov the suspects went to Halton Court and Chester Crown Court on 7th Dec. The more serious charges have been dropped by the prosecution to a lesser charge of arson and being reckless as to whether property was destroyed. One suspect now aged over 18 years has been named, but as all the suspects are maintaining their innocence I won't name him on here. If the prosecution had any strong evidence I would have thought a plea of not guilty would be rather stupid. Perhaps they didn't do it after all. It wouldn't be a first that an innocent person has been charged with arson for one of Warrington's mysterious fires - the poor chap who was falsely accused of setting fire to the old Greenhall's site being one example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 " The lesser charge of arson"....arson used to be a very serious charge,,,,what has the country turned into ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 I can now update. On 25th Nov the suspects went to Halton Court and Chester Crown Court on 7th Dec. The more serious charges have been dropped by the prosecution to a lesser charge of arson and being reckless as to whether property was destroyed. One suspect now aged over 18 years has been named, but as all the suspects are maintaining their innocence I won't name him on here. If the prosecution had any strong evidence I would have thought a plea of not guilty would be rather stupid. Perhaps they didn't do it after all. It wouldn't be a first that an innocent person has been charged with arson for one of Warrington's mysterious fires - the poor chap who was falsely accused of setting fire to the old Greenhall's site being one example. Well if they did do it that's another of your conspiracy theories up in smoke again. Do you really think guilty people don't plead innocence? Only every day. I suppose you have to come out with codswallop like that as your world crumbles otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 They didn't get it for free - far from it I went past tonight and pulled in for a nosey Gary. It was just after 7pm and it was virtually deserted again other than for a handful of people but then again it was raining a bit. I went past again just before 7.30pm and they had turned the lights off on the big swinging ride and the spinner next to it so I guess they may have been closing early. Can't help but think that it's probably costing Silcokcs far more out of their own pockets to be there, pay the land rent and cover their own costs of elec (generators?) etc etc than they they are likely to take in fares. The land has been used as a CPS car park until recently too so I wonder if they are also having to pay CPS as they will be out of pocket too with it not being available for parking...and fines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 " The lesser charge of arson"....arson used to be a very serious charge,,,,what has the country turned into ? I suppose it depend on whether you meant to burn a building down or not but yes Arson should be classed as a serious offence. Weren't they first charged with endangering life too? Maybe that's why it says 'a lesser charge of arson' although in my view fire=danger=endangering life . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted December 14, 2015 Report Share Posted December 14, 2015 what has the country turned into ? Nailed it there Davy. People get away with murder these days with a good enough "excuse", never mind arson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted December 15, 2015 Report Share Posted December 15, 2015 I can now update. On 25th Nov the suspects went to Halton Court and Chester Crown Court on 7th Dec. The more serious charges have been dropped by the prosecution to a lesser charge of arson and being reckless as to whether property was destroyed. One suspect now aged over 18 years has been named, but as all the suspects are maintaining their innocence I won't name him on here. If the prosecution had any strong evidence I would have thought a plea of not guilty would be rather stupid. Perhaps they didn't do it after all. It wouldn't be a first that an innocent person has been charged with arson for one of Warrington's mysterious fires - the poor chap who was falsely accused of setting fire to the old Greenhall's site being one example. Well if they did do it that's another of your conspiracy theories up in smoke again. Do you really think guilty people don't plead innocence? Only every day. I suppose you have to come out with codswallop like that as your world crumbles otherwise. PJ. It might be an idea if you read the posts properly before posting your knee-jerk responses. I wrote; "IF the prosecution had any strong evidence I would have thought a plea of not guilty would be rather stupid". As you said, people plead not guilty everyday. They usually do this if; 1) they believe that there is no actual evidence to prove they are guilty, 2) they are in fact not guilty and so truly believe there is no evidence to convict them, or 3) they dispute guilt due to the content of the actual charge made. In this case the third point has obviously come into play, The original charge included 'with intent to endanger life' which as the building was empty wouldn't and didn't hold up and the charge was lessened to 'with intent to recklessly cause damage to the building'. Now IF the prosecution has strong evidence to prove this charge it would certainly be rather stupid to plead not guilty as the 'strong evidence' would mean the likelihood of a conviction and the 'not guilty' plea would result in them getting a harsher sentence. As those accused have defence lawyers to advise them on the best way to plea, I would suspect that they think there isn't any solid evidence to convict them even of this 'lesser charge'. They could have been advised to plead 'not guilty' with regard to the 'intent' factor and the defence are seeking a further 'lesser' charge of reckless damage but without intent. Or, Perhaps they are entirely innocent? And at this stage, with the little information we have this couldn't be ruled out. PJ, as for your calling this a 'conspiracy theory'. I think with regard to this fire there must be quite a few people to whom the events surrounding it seem strange and will do regardless of whether or not these people are in fact guilty of starting the blaze - because there are still other factors that haven't been explained. One thing that puzzles me is that the charges against these people don't seem to include anything in relation to 'breaking and entering'. Perhaps it's just that the full details haven't been reported in the press yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 15, 2015 Report Share Posted December 15, 2015 you need to take off the tin foil turban SHA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted December 15, 2015 Report Share Posted December 15, 2015 As you said, people plead not guilty everyday. They usually do this if; 1) they believe that there is no actual evidence to prove they are guilty, 2) they are in fact not guilty and so truly believe there is no evidence to convict them, or 3) they dispute guilt due to the content of the actual charge made. 4) They are guilty but don't wish to admit it 5) They are guilty but hope for a soft judge 6) They are guilty but hope that something happens that gets them off 7) Arsonists , I imagine, are not naturally the most trustworthy and honest people in society. Any and all of the above blow your conspiracy theory to smithereens which is why you are desperate to plead their innocence. I bet when you googled the details of the charges you were gutted that they hadn't been acquitted and you could have fed your delusions more nonsense. For you to be right, who are complicit in this conspiracy against the people? So far you have implied, the owners, the council, the police, the CPS, the Judicial system but not the people accused of burning it down. I am gutted that the building was lost, I am also not given to supporting the Council if I think they are wrong but you just keep trotting out unsubstantiated claims of corruption one after the next and it makes you look foolish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.